Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday June 21, 2012 @07:22PM
from the vote-online-or-die dept.

hapworth writes "Eugene Kaspersky, founder and CEO of cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab, has warned that one of the greatest cyber threats facing the world is the lack of effective online voting systems, claiming that unless young people can vote online they won't bother at all and the whole democratic system will collapse. Not everyone is buying that theory, however (and there's reason to suspect Kaspersky has a vested interest in online voting, which may need his firm's cybersecurity products). As producer James Lambie writes, 'Ultimately, the digital native's disenchantment with voting is based less on a lack of suitable technology and more on disillusionment with the craven and anemic political choices they are presented with.'"

Electronic doesn't necessarily mean insecure. Public key cryptography with keys in voter cards is a possibility. Encrypt the vote with your public key and the government's public key, then sign. You could then check that your vote was counted and counted correctly either online with a cheap smartcard reader or at a library if you don't have a reader. The keys would be signed to verify identity and could also include a photo.

The reason current electronic voting machines are insecure is that they have no electronic security whatsoever, not inherently because they're electronic.

Estonia is a shining example of that. They have implemented online voting with smartcards and system is even more tamper-proof, than pen-and-paper voting, as a person can re-vote any number of times he/she wants to and only the last one will count.

>>>as a person can re-vote any number of times he/she wants to and only the last one will count.

This is what we should have for our House of Representatives. We will keep the same politicians, in order to have their meetings and craft the bills, but when it comes to the final passage, it will be decided by the People online. That way stupid stuff like TARP will not pass (almost 80% of Americans were against it). The Senate would still function normally, with politicians voting "aye" or "nay", so as to block any bad bills the People's House might pass.

The reason why TARP passed was because without it we would have fallen into the Great Depression II. The real trouble is that the many of the same people who foam at the mouth about TARP are also somehow think that softening the already weak banking regulations more would work as a stimulus. The simple fact is that the Republican House that was elected in the 2010 has worked hard to keep banks 'too big to fail'. Sure to a lessor extent the Dems are also to blame, but I'd argue that it's just political Darwinism, where only the well financed survive.

Most of the people with school age children have large debts (mortgage). It may be in the parent's best interests to have those debts paid off with inflationary policies.

Also holding debt isn't "bad behavior", (excluding stupid housing choices) it's often a wise decision. In the case of a mortgage, you pay off the principal of the debt and while you live in the house allowing the wise investor to accumulate wealth at a faster pace than he would if he were renting and trying to save up for a house.

They'd do what they do already: not pass anything we wanted to pass, shovel through the stuff we don't want to pass via loopholes, political tricks, misinformation, and waiting until the fewest possible people are watching.

Furthermore, if we can't manage to vote twice every year between about 5 candidates (or 2 if you ignore the primaries, which most people do), what makes you think we'll be able to handle voting many more times a year?

Lastly, I think of myself as better informed and smarter than the average voter, and I don't know if TARP was a good idea or a bad idea. I know most other voters were stronger in their convictions about it than I was, I don't think that means anything though.

Not until we quit electing lawyers and former lawyers, it won't.:) (Speaking from a US perspective.)They're all crooks, but we've managed to elect the entire club of crooks who spend all their time thinking up new ways to stick it to the average citizen.

Estonia is a shining example of that. They have implemented online voting with smartcards and system is even more tamper-proof, than pen-and-paper voting, as a person can re-vote any number of times he/she wants to and only the last one will count.

You can explain to anybody with the most basic literacy level how to count the votes at his booth. They will do it once, twice or thirty times â" The results will match. Anybody can understand this happens at every booth, and they can audit it. And everybody will understand that you ad up the results of tens of booths to get a result for the district/electoral college/whatever. And that gets repeated nationwide. And that's it. My 85 year old aunt can act as one of the auditors.Try to get her to audit the code for an electronic booth. I won't even start to describe how impossible that is.That's the reason that led to Germany's Supreme Court to mandate that e-voting is against the constitution in 2009.

Provide evidence that every voter of average intelligence will also understand it.

If you can't or they can't, it's asking you to rely on your masters. And that's not democracy.

You're expecting a voter of average intelligence to be able to understand the workings of complex security systems and the mathematics behind cryptography? Haven't you seen the news articles about the results of polls in this country?

I see the point you're trying to make about democracy, but the voter of average intelligence probably has trouble with some of the points in the constitution too. should we junk that just because it's a little complicated?

Provide evidence that every voter of average intelligence will also understand it.

If you can't or they can't, it's asking you to rely on your masters. And that's not democracy.

No, that's saying people who are stupid, lazy or just don't care have to rely on their masters. That's the way it should be. Part and parcel of democracy is the responsibility of the individual. I may not understand the mathematics behind public key cryptography, but I can understand the general principles. For the hardcore maths, I can ask any mathematician I trust to verify them; I'm not relying on the government telling me they're secure. And the mathematics for these things are available for public scrutiny, which is the important part.

Besides, I'm not convinced the average voter understands all the complexities of the electoral system they're participating in now anyway.

See Bitcoin and the number of large scale breaches for an example of what can go wrong. No matter how secure the 'vote' is, it all breaks down when what ever human interfacing component that handles the 'vote' gets compromised.Something as simple as voting should adhere to the KISS principle as much as possible and remain as transparent and non-digital as possible.

I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how.
- Stalin

A very important factor in a democracy is the secret of the vote. If I can prove my vote was cast for a given option, then the gate is open for parties buying it â" Or punishing me for voting according to my will.

Not that democracy is worth saving, but,beside the point, let Kapersky secure online polls and impress us first.He sounds like a bombastic dirthead about to nosedive. I notice viruses run rampant about the internet, isn't he supposed to have something to do with eliminating that? Two faced f**k probably sponsors virii.I'd be checkin' into that, real closely if it turns out he is profiteering. My magic 8 ball says, drink a beer.

I’ve always hated this push to get people to go out and vote. That’s not what’s important. The message that should be going out is to educate yourself enough to make an actual decision, THEN vote! Going into a booth (or online) and selecting a random choice because MTV told you it’s your duty to vote is only going to make things worse.

If someone won’t vote unless they can do it in less than 10 seconds... their opinion is probably worth very little, and would rather not have it diluting the already thin pool.

>>>selecting a random choice because MTV told you itâ(TM)s your duty to vote is only going to make things worse.

What's actually making it worse is that most of these people just vote on name recognition. Which is why existing politicians win again-and-again. I know I did that when I was 18, just voting for the name I knew. (I'm wiser now.) There ought to be some basic test like: "Please identify the first president of the United States: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison." If you fail to answer correctly your vote doesn't count, because you obviously don't care enough to learn your own country's history, and don't care about the current president either.

There ought to be some basic test like: "Please identify the first president of the United States: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison." If you fail to answer correctly your vote doesn't count, because you obviously don't care enough to learn your own country's history, and don't care about the current president either.

I prefer something productive like widely shown moderated public debates like we have in Australia. This could be the basis of an enforced voting question to ensure the voter at least bothered to skim an hours TV. We get away without the voter question as several million of our population watch the shows and discuss it after with those who didn't.

Our two successful formats are 'the worm' and 'Qanda'.

In the worm a panel of the countries best media journalists ask targeted policy questions of the two contending political leaders and an audience (either right/left or swing only) controls an opinion graph that is shown to the TV audience in real time.

For Qanda a balanced audience including undecided voters and online viewers may ask literally any question and a moderator enforces either a reasonable answer or an admission of some type. The audience and moderator ensure facts are kept forfront so very little spin survives the process without embarrasment.

QandA is a fantastic format. It somehow gets the perfect mix of political interrogation and causal commentary with a bit of relaxed humour all rolled into one. It generally paints an accurate picture of of the subject matter at hand within an hour's easy viewing.

Our politics are a bit more modest than the media gala that goes on in the US. There's no parades or huge rallies, just old dudes talking and occasionally going on a shopping centre tour kissing babies and shaking hands.

What I find interesting is how our mandatory voting affects the polls. We have a lot more swinging voters than hardline idealists and since they're forced to vote, the attitude is they might as well make (at least) a semi-informed decision. I just wish election campaigns weren't epic sledgin

if only a certain type of people (in this instance those who care about US history) are allowed to vote then you are no longer representing all of the people, which would be un-democratic.

Secondly caring about history and current political matters are two very different things. in Australia even some of the the most politicaly active people may not know the first prime minister - because it's not really relevant, and not really taught in schools.

You could require everyone who wants to vote take a citizenship test every decade or so.

But lots of people would get butthurt and cry RACIST!!!!

Why? Most people who fail will probably be people born in the U.S.A. The sad thing is that although we can reasonably assume that when Jay Leno does "Jay-Walking", he only puts the dumbest answers on TV, he is never going to be short of people to find who are that stupid [youtube.com]. The video is not all 'JayWalking', at 1:25 it starts addressing who would fail if people had

You could require everyone who wants to vote take a citizenship test every decade or so. But lots of people would get butthurt and cry RACIST!!!! Actually, there's nothing in the constitution that says who gets to vote, just reasons that aren't acceptable to discriminate on (race/gender/age above 18/ability to pay a poll tax). There's nothing that says you can't discriminate against felons, people who can't pass a test, people who smell bad, whatever criteria you like. You could also give voting rights to 10 year olds if a state voted for it.

Yes, it's not in the Constitution.

It's in the FUCKING VOTING RIGHTS ACT YOU MORON.

There's a reason there's more to US law than the Constitution. Apparently you've never heard of the concept that Congress doesn't have to add something to the Constitution to make it law. But in fact, that's actually in several amendments, and was found to be necessary in 1965.

Second that opinion. I've always hated the stoopid motor-voter registration where they enroll voters when they attain or renew their drivers license. You should have to make the effort to GO somewhere and enroll.

That said, in the US voting no longer matters anyway. We have Mitrock Obomney who enacted mandatory healthcare in MA and nationwide and now he's totally against it. Except in MA.

I'd love to see 90% turnout... assuming they were mostly clueful. But I'd be just as happy with 10% turnout assuming they were almost all clueful. We need to find a way to stop idiots from voting. But I can't think of any that wouldn't be abused by whoever was in power at the time to create an even worse situation.

Oh please do fight on. I do, even though the cause is lost to any rational analysis. But we lost the war the second we crossed the event horizion of 50% of the country falling into the Taker class.

There were any number of almost as bright lines we have been crossing the last century. Go look at the footage of the more sane pols from the Great Society era who warned we were spending our children and grandchildren's inheritance... they were right. It's all spent. The social security 'trust fund' is just a bunch of IOUs from the government to be paid by the government; meaningless. Things that can't continue, don't. Bailouts just postpone the Doom! and we are so screwed there isn't enough wealth on the planet to bail the West out of the hole it has managed to dig itself into.

Our money has no intrinsic value and since we are now calling it into existence trillions at a time even stupid people are figuring out that it doesn't have any real value. And again, we are so far in that rabbit hole we probably couldn't reverse course even if we wanted to.... and we don't.

And so on.

But we should fight anyway, because if we surrender we certainly lose and in the era of rapid change we live in we just might be able to struggle long enough to make it to a game changer. Because while all the wealth on Earth can't bail us out, if we doubled our wealth we could probably at least buy enough time to do it again. And somewhere along the way we might invent a political game changer and end the century of progressive misrule.

That requires having the tools necessary to reason and analyze the arguments. Those sorts of skills require education far in advance of anything provided at High School and often in advance of much that is provided even in undergraduate university courses. Teaching the necessary skills to actually comprehend society, the effects and limits of government, and how politicians seek to manipulate your inner fears - that's a 3-4 year program in itself.

True, but you shouldn't introduce artificial barriers to voting. The US for example has gotten rid of tests to qualify for voting precisely because it disenfranchised certain voters.

Besides, the electorate at large can't really make educated decisions about policy. They try, but ultimately the best you can do is set the tone for the type of politician you want to represent you, not have a perfect mesh of policy ideas.

When people are young they tend to be fixated on certain issues, pot legalization, the environment, cost of education that sort of thing. Not that those issues aren't important, but they don't exist in a vacuum, and as you get older and spend more time being aware of the broader scope of government (as an insurance system, as a source of stable investment through bonds, as a regulator of various things and so on) you realize more about how you need to vote as a broader ideological vote than a specific issue vote, and you get more worried about not the other guy, or the one who will hit 3 of the 5 things you like rather than the one who will only do 2 of the 5 kind of thing.

But in the end, the vast majority of the electorate wouldn't recognize a liquidity trap even if they were in one, and aren't capable of understanding how to vote about the issue because of that. Governments are necessarily large complex operations, and you end up trading off wacky things like individual health care mandates against military bases in swing districts or missile defence for aid against assad in syria. The public as a whole are never really going to grasp tradeoffs like that, and certainly not 4 or 5 years worth of potential future tradeoffs at a time.

The US for example has gotten rid of tests to qualify for voting precisely because it disenfranchised certain voters.

Maybe those voters need to be disenfranchised. For a long time I've seriously believed that the 19th Amendment needs to be revisited. When I was young and idealistic, I didn't think so. I've encountered too many living stereotypes, people who put themselves in bad situations just because thanks to their gender or skin color, there's always going to be some white male clamoring to pull them back out of their own crap.

did you seriously suggest women should be denied the right to vote? brilliant.

I was making reference to Jim Crow laws that prevented blacks from voting by coming with with arbitrarily hard tests for blacks so that they couldn't possibly pass. Those were overturned in the 1960's in the US with voter's rights act and civil rights act. The 19th amendment (and, admittedly, I'm not an american so I could simply be wrong in assuming you are, was what granted women the right to vote).

Social security is a giant insurance system, as is medicare/medicaid. The government is merely the collection of the people, and they are very much things that entail certain risks based on potential unknown costs or provide guaranteed income without any knowledge of future tax receipts.

If you lose your job, and are poor, you collect medicaid. That's insurance. You also get unemployment, that's also insurance. You pay into some sort of social security or have a government old age pension that's an insur

People who watch MTV might subscribe to a liberal philosophy for example and vote Democrat. Democratic committee sees this and pays MTV. They then say vote when what they really mean is,"We want you to vote democratic!"

This isn't an endorsement for Dems or Reps, just a big dose of reality. If everyone voted, it doesn't make the world a better place other than the guys in charge being scared if they tried to remove voting from us. That is

"The message that should be going out is to educate yourself enough to make an actual decision, THEN vote!"

This. +10. Making it easier for people to vote only makes it so those who aren't willing to expend the effort to make an informed choice, pollute the waters. People complain about all the money in politics - well, the only reason it's there is because political advertising works to convince the ignorant to vote based on shallow marketing, not knowledge or understanding. If someone won't take the initi

But those are the problems; of course those are obvious; there's no mis-information potential there, really (well, unless you count global warming). The mis-information abounds concerning WHO exactly is capable of coordinating a resolution of those problems. EVERY candidate will claim he can resolve them, but are any of them telling the truth and not embellishing the heck out of their own abilities? Quite often it's the case that NONE of them can actually resolve the problems, and we truly are voting for

And you'd listen to them and figure out, based on the present information, and historic record, who is more likely to be correct. If none of them can resolve the problems, then I guess we will just have to wait until people are adequately motivated to find a a solution.

Personally, I'd argue that making voting mandatory but restricting the electorate to those with a given minimum level of education and/or minimum intelligence would be the smart move, but change the rules for being in school from being mandatory for under 16s to being mandatory for under BSc/BAs regardless of age. (Likewise, eliminate the age of responsibility/majority - unlike cheese and wine, people do not improve with age alone - and replace it with a proficiency of responsibility. I don't care if you're 16, 60 or 600.)

1. Not everyone is suited for a college degree. Period. That does not automatically mean they are less intelligent.
2. Make rules for voting other than 'citizen' and 'breathing' and we would immediately see massive manipulation of those rules. And *you* will not be one of the manipulators.

I was plus-oneing the first part of his comment, not so much the latter part. You mistakenly presume that the necessary information for informed voting actually exists and that mere socializing is the vehicle that disseminates it? What happens when no one but the candidates themselves and their inner circles are actually informed? Socializing just disseminates the B.S. that the candidates misframe as useful information. That is exactly what happens now, and has been happening for at least many decades.

>>>In Australia getting to the polls on voting day is mandatory. You're fined otherwise

So much for pro-choice.If I don't want to vote, I shouldn't have to vote, anymore than I have to exercise my right of free speech (i.e. I can choose to remain silent during a police encounter). A right is only a right if you are free to choose all options. Else you're just a serf being compelled by a master (the politicians).

We use essentially the same system here in Canada. The key value to the paper ballots in my opinion is that it is much harder to throw the election by ballot tampering. A large scale effect requires a large conspiracy.With electronic voting a bit of well placed code can make a huge difference - as we probably saw in Florida when GW Bush stole the election...

I say stop making excuses for and pandering to "young people". If they can't integrate with the "real world" IRL then they can just starve to death in their pathetic little digital corners. There are plenty of things in life that require one to get off one's own ass - voting is one of them.

I say stop making excuses for and pandering to "young people". If they can't integrate with the "real world" IRL then they can just starve to death in their pathetic little digital corners. There are plenty of things in life that require one to get off one's own ass - voting is one of them.

>>>unless young people can vote online they won't bother at all and the whole democratic system will collapse

Ron Paul seems to be doing alright, and his support is mostly young people. He now has close to 300 delegates thanks to young people willing to drive to the caucuses, stand-around for hours one end, & vote.

The official stats seem to disagree, or at least suggest that there's more to consider than just age/membership in a wired generation.

Consider for instance the breakdown in voting participation over the last 4 presidential elections [census.gov] (.pdf warning) - voter participation of those between 18 and 34 (what I would consider to be the net generation) has increased, in many cases markedly. Consider for instance that 18 to 20 year olds in 1996 had a 31.2% rate, 2000 saw a 28.4, 2004 had a 41% and 2008 had 41%. Similarly 21 to 24 saw 33.4, 35.4, 42.5, and 46.6. Similarly overall participation [census.gov] has increased across the board - 50.3% in 2000 to 57.1 in 2008.

If anything one could argue that the rise of the internet has increased participation through the development of targeted demographic outreach like that popularly attributed to Obama's campaign success. Combine that with the ready stream of polarising online news, politicised communities, and use of social media and you've got a recipe for maximum outreach with minimum investment.

Consider for instance the breakdown in voting participation over the last 4 presidential elections (.pdf warning) - voter participation of those between 18 and 34 (what I would consider to be the net generation) has increased, in many cases markedly.

[...]

If anything one could argue that the rise of the internet has increased participation through the development of targeted demographic outreach like that popularly attributed to Obama's campaign success.

Taking four data points and not controlling for any other contributing factor you can say lots of things, but nothing meaningful.

Sorry, I don't think I'm understanding you. The assertion is: "voter participation of those between 18 and 34 (what I would consider to be the net generation) has increased, in many cases markedly". The numbers then show that the voter participation among those age groups has increased. What "controlling for any other contributing factor" is needed to reach the conclusion that the thesis is correct based on the data?

If you're referring to the next paragraph, he clearly starts with "One could argue". Not even remotely the same as claiming statistical correlation of any kind, just another thesis presented based on the (successful) validation of the original thesis.

If you call it a "success." I witnessed Obama's campaign and then listened to the man for one minute and was instantly motivated to get up and go vote for anyone else, literally, ANYONE else, even Palin. Maybe "this guy is SO terrible, you should vote against him" is a better motivation than "hey look, I'm embracing technology while wearing a big smile on my face, never mind half of what I'm saying is contradicting my own actions in office!"

VHS? you were lucky.We were so poor our entire family lived in a brown paper bag in the middle of the road. All 58 of us. We used to eat coal for breakfast and work 28 hour days, as well as do a 50 mile delivery round every morning in bare feet because we couldnt afford shoes. But we were happy. I miss the good old days.

Mod up please
Digital voting is voting that can be done with a gun to your head. It's voting that can be directly paid for. Much as I can't imagine having to do banking offline, I can't think of any good way to move voting online.

There just is no way to guarantee a safe, secret and pressure-free vote unless you actually require the voter to go to a voting booth where he can in solitude and secrecy colour one box red. It's that simple.

No, not really. You can still go to a voting booth and cast an electronic vote. Solitude and secrecy depend on having the voting area controlled, but on what technology's used to cast the vote.

This is from a company that is Russian, and by coincidence discovers the US might be at fault for Flame just as there is a tug-of-war between ICANN and a Russian/Chinese backed UN body for control of the Internet.

If anyone has any clue at all, electronic voting is just ripe for being hacked. Look at what the Black Box voting site reported, from monkeys hacking voting booths, to standard keys that fit any RV fitting the locks on the voting computer. Without a solid paper component, it is a heck of a lot easier to forge results in a way that is completely detectable. At least with hanging chads, someone somewhere had to hold up pieces of paper and say they were not usable. Just being electronic means that a country's elections can be completely compromised by a foreign body.

Hmm... I'm sure there are plenty of countries who don't like the US who would love to influence elections. Making voting electronic just means the hack will be untraceable. I'm sure advocating E-voting would help lots in this department.

Hell with e-voting. We need paper trails, as what was shown with the voting machine stories.

This sounds suspiciously like preliminary marketing buzz for a new Kaspersky Labs software venture: create perception of a problem so they can then leap in and solve it. As irredeemably cynical as I am about human motives, behavior, and so-called intelligence, even I don't believe that a lack of e-voting will be a significant deterrent to people voting. The proximal cause of most people not voting, as demonstrated time and time again, is disillusionment with the whole process and the mediocre - at best - results... "why bother when my vote doesn't count and I have no idea who the 'better man' actually is?"

I have voted in every election I could right up until the BC-STV vote of 2009 when it became really clear that the people enjoyed vote splitting. I did some research and realized that every single vote I had ever participated in the worst candidate won (in my opinion) because of the first past the post (FPTP) system and vote splitting. I'm fairly confident in my assertion because of how there were usually 2 strong liberal candidates vs 1 awful conservative candidate who would win in every election despite

As producer James Lambie writes, 'Ultimately, the digital native's disenchantment with voting is based less on a lack of suitable technology and more on disillusionment with the craven and anemic political choices they are presented with.'"

Actually, the two are closely linked. As Duverger's Law [wikipedia.org] tells us, the reason there are few choices is because our plurality voting system favors a two-party system. Because preferential systems like Instant Runoff and Condorcet work best with electronic ballots, suitable

Votes are bought and sold every day. How do you think the US deficit got as high as it has? Greek foreign debt? Spanish public debt? Voters, when offered a chance to tax anyone except themselves, do so.

Which is why the people with the most money pay the least taxes proportionately? Which is why the battle cry of the last congressional election was "cut all the programs and spending!" without a word about the, you know, reasonable answer when you already have one of the lowest social expenditures per capita of western countries, raise taxes? Not seeing it. I think you are either A or C on your list, rather than actually someone expressing original thought. At the very least, you're overlooking the fact it

They should know that computers are merely tools and that they are a tool that is poorly suited to free and democratic voting. This is a simple conclusion to come to, and something that I'd expect a well-bred security company to understand. You don't utilize a hammer to drill holes. I'm sure you could compromise in some situations, but it won't be a pleasant experience.

unless young people can vote online they won't bother at all and the whole democratic system will collapse

first, the democratic system has already collapsed. that's the past. second, there are not enough informed voters to make a significant amount of votes matter. all people, let alone young people, let along young people in the US, need complete and accurate information, and to understand that information, to make an informed choice. the lack of informed choice among all peoples of earth, not just the US, is the greatest threat to democracy. giving uninformed voters more access and encouraging it is not a val

I want to go back to voting with punch cards. It's cheap, simple (unless you're a retiree in West Palm Beach), there are less opportunities for shenanigans, and there's an archive to go back to for a recount rather than "oops, district 733 crashed; they don't count this year".

The first time the votes are tallied, and in a write-in landslide, "7337 H4X0R" wins, we'll go to "Show your face at the poll, show ID, and mark your vote on paper" a lot faster than you'd have ever believed Congress could move.

This will probably happen the first time there's Internet voting. Definitely by the second.

It will be through digital voting fraud that democracy will suffer its worst blows. There are two good reasons. Any group who cheats their way into power can close the door behind them and make it so that only they can cheat. The best you could hope for after that is a better cheater or a revolution; neither being that great for democracy. The second reason is that any group who cheats will probably be a combination of unpopular, slimeballs, and absolute disbelievers in democracy.

But the worst part of all this is that while wrapping themselves in a false blanket of having a mandate of the people the cheaters will have no worries about public opinion as that only matters if the public can say, vote you out of office. Normally it is when the government forgets that they are there at our pleasure that we kick the bums out; but post cheating they will just get worse and worse.

But if we could get viable digital voting we would be able to remove much of the power that we handed over to "representatives" in the days of the horse and buggy when the levers of government were so very far away.

The only digital voting that I would trust is where you make your selections and out pops a piece of paper with your choices. You can then check your paper to verify that the computer got it right. The final count would rest with the paper. But the advantage of the computer would be that it could allow much more complicated voting such as ordering candidates or voting on dozens of referendums or piece by piece on a budget while enforcing rules such as you can't vote for two people at once. This would then result in an instant tally seconds after the election ends but then people would count the paper ballots to verify the computer results with the paper ballots being the final authority.

The only hope is that when the first cheaters get caught that they are small in power (say a state) and that it sets an example for how not to trust electronic voting.

"[T]he lack of well-established online voting systems is a real threat to democratic nations of the Western world," Kaspersky said in a recent interview with the BBC. He stated that the generational divide between ever-more-digitized youth and their parents will increase to the point where "the whole democratic system could collapse" because "if there's no online voting system, these kids won't physically go anywhere to vote, they just won't, they'll refuse."

Electronic Voting cannot be democratic as it doesn't conform to the minimal standards.

So far nobody has proposed an electronic voting system which can be proven to not be manipulated by anybody. If you need a degree in math to understand how the security works, it may be suitable for an election in the maths department of an university, but it is not suitable for the general population.

The pen an paper system can be checked by everybody, not just specialists who might fear for their job if they became politically active.

The problem with online voting is not and never has been a technical challenge. That part is - in theory - easy to solve and workable protocols have been around for at least 20 years.

The problem that no software will ever solve is that online voting can not protect your vote against tampering. All the bad guy needs is to stand behind you when you put down your vote and shoot your family if it is not the one he likes. Something he can't easily do in poll booth.

Yes, the same problem exists with absentee votes, but they have always been a small enough number to not matter, plus there is the time delay you can use to inform authorities.

Negative campaigning works. But not in the way you probably think. To make as generic of an example as possible. Nothing an R says will get a D to come vote for him. But if you can demoralize him enough he just might stay home. And that is exactly half as good as getting them to vote for you. On the other hand positive ads can sway unattached voters who bother to show up and inspire your own team to get out. So you need both.